Wikipedia Blasted for Pornographic Material

Some entries feature sexually explicit images.

SAN FRANCISCO - Members of the Concerned Women for America are criticizing Wikipedia for allowing content that includes sexually explicit images.

According to a report in World Net Daily, Matt Barber - the Concerned Women for America's policy director for cultural issues and a constitutional law attorney - said he was outraged by the decision.

"Children use Wikipedia all of the time for reports for school, and this stuff is not just pornography: This is hardcore pornography," he said. "Much of it may even be in violation of our nation's obscenity laws."

ADVERTISEMENT

Wikpedia, an online encyclopedia that features user-submitted content, has some detailed photographs that accompany more adult articles on subjects such as "fluffer" and "striptease."

Barber said many of the filtering devices people have in their homes and schools are not geared toward protecting against Wikipedia's material.

"Children are often able to bypass these filtering devices and view hardcore, vile pornography," he said. "There is raw, unedited homosexual pornography and other videos on this Wikipedia website, a site that so many Americans and people around the world rely upon."

The "fluffer" entry, for example, offers the standard adult entertainment industry definition of the word and is accompanied by a picture from a Lucas Entertainment set.

"Wikipedia's goal is to provide an encyclopedia that contains the sum of all human knowledge," Mark Pelligrini, a regional representative for Wikipedia, told World Net Daily. "To that end, Wikipedia does not censor objectionable material.

"[I]f someone goes to the articles on 'sex,' 'penis' or any graphic topic, we do provide frank descriptions and images. For images, we aim for clinical pictures of the sort you would find in an anatomy or medical textbook."

Barber said he planned to contact the Department of Justice and the U.S. Attorney's office to determine whether Wikipedia may be engaging in the dissemination of illegal obscenity.

"Unfortunately, by allowing this type of material, Wikipedia has really sullied its name," he said. "If it wants to be viewed as being in the business of pornography, it is certainly doing a good job of labeling itself as a bunch of hardcore pornographers."